Hoke: Upon Further Review
Now that the regular season is through, I've been looking back at MGoBlog circa January 2011, "Hoke React, No Swearing". Given Brian's previous distaste for the idea of hiring Hoke, I was surprised to see that he actually projected a lot of good things would happen this upcoming season: "A completely average coach should be able to take 20 returning starters on a 7-6 team that sees the schedule ease considerably and get to 9-3....This hypothetical 9-3 will cause the media to fall all over themselves declaring Brady Hoke the polar opposite of Rich Rodriguez". This has actually all happened, except Michigan is 10-2 but in a weaker-than anticipated Big Ten, and one of those wins was miraculously stolen from Notre Dame in an incredibly improbable fashion. The BCS computers all still seem to treat us like we're 9-3 anyway, so we only did a little better than Brian predicted. So here we are, in the not-very-nightmarish situation that Brian curiously predicted at a time when he was predisposed to be pessimistic.
What Brian seemed most worried about were future years, not this next year. He said, "Michigan's just thrown in the towel on being a national power". I think Brian and a lot of MGoBlog people felt like although Hoke might have this kind of season from time to time, this was his ceiling. Do we still think this? Is Brady Hoke's tremendous first year success more the product of returning starters, experience, talent, and media support that he walked into, than any of Brady Hoke's doing?
Brady Hoke isn't an offensive guru. The offensive coordinator that he hired does not have an elite resume. However, the offense this year has still been good, and next year, it may well be one of the best in the nation, if the last two games are any indication. Hoke has inherited a tremendous amount of talent recruited by Rich Rod on the offensive side of the ball: mountain goat slot ninjas, a dilithium quarterback, a running back who is like Mike Hart but with speed, donkey-hating, freshman-headbutting offensive linemen, and a bunch of short guys from Pahokee who block like they're twice their size because they've got something to prove. Borges has figured out how to use these guys; but one wonders if the offense will ever be even close to what it was once they graduate and Hoke's recruits move in.
Anyway, I'm just wondering, what do you think Brady Hoke's ceiling is? Do you still think he represents a return to late-era Carr, going 9-3 every year and beating OSU 30% of the time, occasionally going to the Rose Bowl sometimes but invariably losing by trying to out-execute USC? How does Brady compare to Carr, and what might make him more or less successful than Carr was?
November 30th, 2011 at 9:46 AM ^
Excellent points, as far as I'm concerned. Borges has objectively done a great job. The subjective question of whether someone is "elite" is bullshit and hype anyway.
Results are what counts, and Gorgeous has 'em.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:46 AM ^
Arizona just made a really bad hire.
(Point being we all know a lot more goes into success at a program than x's and o's; and politics are often involved...Michigan isn't unique there).
November 30th, 2011 at 7:41 AM ^
One part you write about Borges is incorrect. He had not run multiple styles of offense at previous stops. He ran the same offense at eight schools over 25 years prior to coming here. He had never had a QB rush for anything, ever. That is why people were concerned.
He was a little slow to fully come around to running what worked best this year, but overall he has done a fantastic job. I look forward to seeing more of what we've seen the past few games.
I find it strange that you praise him for being flexible in one paragraph and then talk about how amazing our offense will be when we go back to running the same offense he has run forever in the next.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:48 AM ^
I based it off of hearing about the "gulf coast offense," west coast offense, then seeing him work both a phenomenal aerial attack at UCLA, then more of a spread type here. In reality, it all might have been the same until he got here.
I just think once he gets the pieces he wants in place, we will have seen him put up 40+ on OSU in two entirely different schemes over the course of 5 years. Not too many coaches will be able to say that.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:57 AM ^
The numbers I can find run from 2000-2010 and cover Borges' stops at UCLA, Cal, Indiana, Auburn, and SDSU. Over those eleven seasons, his starting QBs carried the ball 522 times for -721 yards. In other words, they didn't carry the ball. That had me scared to death in August. There was a lot of screaming at the television going on in my house for the first three quarters of the ND game.
Maybe this year was somewhat of an epiphany for Borges. All I know is I love what he's doing now.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:59 AM ^
Wow, those QBs are worse than Notre Dame punt returners /zing
November 30th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
Cade McNown didnt run at UCLA? Sure, it wasnt like Denard, but then, again, NO ONE has ever been like Denard.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^
He ran for about 15-20 yards a game throughout his career. I'd imagine most of those were scrambles, not designed QB runs.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
The beat downs last year were an embarrassment. I was just hoping to go 8-4 and avoid beatdowns in the losses this year. 9-3 with a win over Ohio would have made me very happy. 10-2 with that Ohio win makes me deleriously happy. I don't see how anyone can give this coaching staff anything less than an A for the season. They did a great job with this team, and built a solid foundation for the future. And they showed they can adapt, as Borges went away from the I formation as the year went on and it was not working all that well. Not to mention, Mattison showed he can defend against a running QB. When did we last see that from a Michigan team?
November 30th, 2011 at 7:15 AM ^
I honestly think the whole "any decent coach could go 9-3" talk before the hire was a product of people that had venomously defended RR over the course of 3 years seeing what they defended and believed ripped away from them. This was more an attempt to discredit the replacement coach than an actual prediction. Anyone that watched last years defense knew 9-3 would be an amazing season.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:24 AM ^
This is so true. And anyone who followed this season day-to-day knows that it was no cakewalk getting to 9-3, much less 10-2. After the Iowa loss, we were facing a final three games of Ill, NU, tsio, needing to win two of those to go 9-3. No cakewalk at all. Great job Borges, just like Hoke and Mattison!
November 30th, 2011 at 8:51 AM ^
As it got closer to the season, and we could see how "bad" the Big Ten was going to be, he altered his prediction to 8-4. That 9-3 was more exactly that....saying anyone could win with this team, to proactively discredit it.
Seeing how it was done changed Brian's tune during the season.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:20 AM ^
When Brian wrote that, Denard was widely expected to transfer - and we expected a resulting offensive drop off when Hoke's scheme (this was pre-Borges I think) wouldn't work great with our O line and receivers, and we had no standout back (and of course no Denard). We also expected that, no matter who the D coordinator was, that the D would improve moderately. We expected our 9 wins to be close, exciting, and all like the ND game. We expected 3 ugly, uninspiring losses. We expected a gaping hole in our recruiting classes.
Instead, our D wildly exceeded expectations. The O did drop off - until the last three weeks when it suddenly looks as good as last year, except better because less turnovers. 9 of our 10 wins were thumpings. The tenth was Ohio. The losses look like they're in the rearview mirror - and the result of an (already over?) offensive transition. And our recruiting looks badass.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:35 AM ^
If Denard transferred and the defense improved only moderately, no way would we have had 9 wins, even with our schedule.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:54 AM ^
Please define thumping, in light of ND.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:02 AM ^
And two feel good close wins
November 30th, 2011 at 8:54 AM ^
After 2 thumpings, and maybe 2 feel good close wins, and 3 WTF wins.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:06 AM ^
Not sure I agree with you on Denard "widely" thought to transfer. Maybe around here...but this site was the driving force behind the "Goodbye Denard" feelings.
And that's kinda the point. You can say "Brian was really close in his prediction" (well, one of the record ones he made, anyway), but he was wrong on just about every other one. Hoke being too conservative. Denard was automatically gone. The first recruiting class would be a 10 man disaster. We wouldn't be flexible at all and the offense would be a train wreck (anyone remember post spring game?). And that the defense would improve into the 60-80 range (which actually seemed reasonable, but still wasn't right). He, and a lot of others, spent months finding every fault with everything that could and would go wrong....and were incorrect on basically all of them.
Now, we don't know the long term results yet..you can't. Everyone thought Rich was a great hire the first day, and that didn't work out for various reasons. You can't know for sure. But the OP's idea that Brian was pretty close in what he felt was going to happen if Hoke was hired is coloring history quite a bit. And I bet even Brian thinks Hoke exceeded his expectations in almost every category.
I don't really blame people completely, if they're just looking at the numbers. But if you paid attention to people who know the guy, it isn't that shocking that people thought he was a pretty good coach. And maybe more importantly for Michigan, a better person.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^
...see my signature line.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^
Made you make me look good.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
You are right that the "Denard is leaving" bandwagon was basically a media and blog phenomenon. We know now that Denard never came close to leaving. At the time, everything we knew about the guy's character said that he would not abandon his teammates. It's part of the downside of blogs like this one -- with such an emphasis on analysis, the human dynamic is often completely left out, even when it is the key factor. Denard was never leaving this team and there was never actual evidence to think that he was -- only blog analysis.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
Frankly, so does Rich for how he handled it. But of course, most of it goes to Denard.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
That Brian admitted he was wrong as well.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
Maybe I should have worded it that "Brian has said he's exceeded his expectations" rather than "thinks".
November 30th, 2011 at 9:09 AM ^
Did people seriously expect Denard to transfer? I do not recall hearing that with any validity. My recollection is that a talking head or two might have conjectured but nothing worth taking the least bit seriously.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:40 AM ^
I don't think Brian predicted anywhere near the success Hoke & co. are having on the recruiting front. Sure, the instability at Ohio St. certainly helps, but I still see us winning our fair share of recruiting battles against Meyer like we did against John Cooper.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:56 AM ^
I think Brady Hoke deserves all the credit for this season. Unlike RR he was willing to adjust his system to fit the players on the team. He also hired great coaches. Having good assistant coaches is huge in college football. Time of possession and turnover margin also improved greatly under Hoke's leadership. Brian is also wrong about turnovers having nothing to do with coaching or scheme. Funny how teams that win allot of games doesn’t turn the ball over. This team was probably going to be 6-6 or 7-5 at best if RR would have had another year. RR also didn't know what he was doing on the recruiting trail. He inherited a team from Lloyd Carr that didn't have depth at OL or DL and after three years he still did nothing about this. Brian isn't god. He's 50/50 on his predictions just like everyone else. He thought RR was a great hire and he was wrong. He thought Hoke was a bad hire and he was wrong. Saying that Al Borges isn't an elite coordinator is laughable. I would take Borges over Rich Rod or any of his assistants any day. Did you see PITT’s offense under Calvin Magee? They stunk it up.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:01 AM ^
I don't think there's any question that Hoke has wildly exceeded expectations, even taking into account his good fortune w/r/t everything that happened at tOSU. But 10 wins next year will be tough given our schedule, no matter how much more awesome Denard is by next season.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:13 AM ^
No not with the Number 1 (Scout) / Number 2 recruiting (rivals). I mean if we pull Dunn, and some of these other guys we are currently going after. I mean if we are #1/#2 with 5-6 recruits left. Wow thats pretty much a lock for success over the next 3-4 years. Really all that is needed are committments from Dunn , Garnett, and Diggs. Two of the last three should go to Mcnamara and Darboh and/or Payton with a sixth possible from Wright. All this shit depends on a bunch of scenarios like the ones to get Michigan in the Sugar Bowl. I was hoping for a Southern Mississippi victory over Houston and Boise State gets the Nod to the Sugar to face Michigan. Southern Miss would not jump us and we still look good for whoever loses the Big Ten title game will most likely go behind UM in the polls and the BCS standings. Most likely Georgia loses big to LSU, they are out. And dont forget Oklahoma at #10 going to Stillwater...they will lose to the Cowboys about 45-37 which most likely puts them in the insight bowl against the Big Ten but I dont give a f....Stoops needs a nice little setback as we are on the rise...My realistic prediction Michigan plays Houston in the Sugar if all goes to form. Cross your fingers! GO BLUE!
November 30th, 2011 at 8:27 AM ^
I don't really fear Houston's Defense vs our Offense, but man, they can light up the boards on Offense, it would be a tough match-up for us I think.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
Actually, after seeing we can still score 35-45 points with a ball control offense, Im not so worried about Houston. Sure they can score, but only when they have the ball. I think we can do to them what we did to Nebraska, and walk away with a 44-24 win.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:31 AM ^
Florida State would disagree that high recruiting rankings are a lock for success. I don't think we'll see their problems in player development, though. (Player development being the thing that always gets forgotten in all the attention to recruiting).
November 30th, 2011 at 8:54 AM ^
Also see Clemson.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:31 AM ^
Part of effective recruiting goes back to LC's "recruiting kids who want to play for Michigan". We have a great class coming in, but it also appears they are deperate to become part of the program and to be coached up (per the recent Pipkins article). Kid doesn't demonstrate commitment (Pharoah), "no problem son...good luck to you". Kid shows passion and potential(Drake), c'mon son we have a spot for you. FSU and Miami (YTM) classes underachieve because a significant portion of them go because they are not desperate to be coached up and to improve.
Our program is in very good hands.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^
Those are pretty big generalizations drawn from a genre of reporting (recruiting hype) that prey on fans' desire to feel that every commit is the next big thing and willing to sacrifice anything for good old U.
The real hope lies in the fact that Hoke seems to have assembled a fairly excellent staff of not only coordinators but position coaches who showed impressive ability to improve players' performance over the course of the year (Heiniger, Morgan, Countess, etc.) not in the crack offered by scout and rivals. I'd wager that FSU's and Miami's difficulties lie not in some innate lack of desire among their players to improve but in mediocre coaching born of 1. an sub-coordinator coaching staff that was filled with Bowden cronies (FSU) and 2. an assistant coaching staff that had constant conflict with the coach and each other, and near constant upheaval (Randy Shannon's Miami).
November 30th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^
Nice reply. I specifically remember watching Trevor Pryce in the mid-90s (prior to his transfer) and thinking that, with that body and that speed, he should get to the quarterback on nearly every play. Still, middling tackles were easily keeping him out of plays without help of a double team. Incredibly frustrating. Here's a highly ranked recruit who not only seems unmotivated, but also lost in terms of how to attack his blocker. Fast forward and he has a nice NFL career, but he never delivered for Michigan. It was also around this time that we were blessed with "the lynch mob" for db's. Enter LC's words a couple of years later about recruiting kids who want to play for Michigan and it made perfect sense to me.
Combine a few thing we know or we think we know 1)The words (and early commitments) of Pipkins, Kalis, Bolden, RJS, Godin etc seeming to be all about Michigan. 2) The coaches slow playing or not even offering? several questionable commitments (Burbridge, Pitman) without apparent worry over the consequences. 3) the coaches taking some kids without ridiculous hype because they seem to fit (Houma, Johnson and Clark). 4) Taking kids on the spot who are offered and want to commit regardless of whether there are 5 stars who may be left out of the classs due to numbers on signing day.
The whole thing seems to add up to getting great talent that wants to be coached and will win vs. Trevor Pryce (and FSU and Miami) taking up space and never quite reaching the qb's blind side. We shall see...the future is bright.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^
Absolutely. We're in a very good place. It also seems like Hoke is someone that not only good players want to play for, but good coaches want to coach for, both of which are incredibly valuable.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:39 AM ^
I was completely and enthusiastically sold on Hoke after reading the many glowing accounts of respect from former players, coaches, and anyone else associated with him, together with his reputation as a top-notch recruiter and his turn-around track records, He's outperformed my optimistic expectations.
Criticism of Hoke's HC record was extremely shallow. You take over bottom-dweller programs and your initial years are going to be losing records - it's the transformation. Does that even need to be explained?
I can't believe I'm still reading guarded optimism bullshit on this site - what more do you need to see?
November 30th, 2011 at 8:49 AM ^
Wow, could you suck a little hard on Brian's knob in the first part of your post? He HATED the Hoke hire initially. I think that needs to be mentioned for at least the first couple of seasons with Hoke.
As for the ceiling, it's a national title. Hoke gets it, and Harbaugh is the only candidate that might have been able to do more with this team (given that he's turned the hapless Niners into legit Super Bowl contenders (if the Packers didn't exist, that is)).
November 30th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^
Yeah, I was thinking about talking about the Profiles in Croneyism post. However, that was in 2007, before Hoke had even had much success. But Brian did say some pretty nasty things about Hoke there: "If Hoke is hired here there will be a riot, and with good reason", "Richard Nixon's penis is a better candidate", and, perhaps worst of all, "The functional equivalent of DeBord".
Brian wrote some stunningly wrong things in 2007. "Spartans, your profession is 'Loser'" is up there too.
Is it just me, or has Brian gotten a lot less mean over the past few years? I can't really see him writing pieces like that today.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:50 AM ^
my expectations.
It's not just that he won 10 games. It's how they did it. The fact that he was smart enough to bring in Mattison and completely make our D functional. Even the most hopeful M fans only thought they could get this D into the 50's-60's nationally. That far exceeded expectations. Also, Hoke is tearing up recruiting. The sky is the limit for Hoke. There is no reason that we won't be a top 10 team year in and year out starting as early as next year. Tough start to 2012...
November 30th, 2011 at 8:52 AM ^
I would say that we aren't throwing in the towel. I think the combination of the three factors I listed above mean that we are going back to national relevance and we want to be there.
What I am honestly most terrified of is when Mattison leaves or retires. What will happen to our defense, our recruiting, our team. We have a VERY old coaching staff. This is good, but it means that we don't have any up and commers who we think can take over and really lead the defense or offense when our two coordinators inevitably leave. I am hoping though that Brandon's recent willingness to spend on coordinators will continue into the future and we will be able to take up and comers from other schools.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:20 AM ^
I hope Wellman (or Borges's dad) can get to Mattison and Borges (hell, and Hoke too) and get them to drop a few lbs this offseason. Those guys are not going to get any younger, and I'd like to see them stick around as long as possible. This is not me being an ass - I don't care one bit what our coaches look like - but people who are gettting up there in years and are carrying 80 lbs or so of extra weight might not be able to handle the rigors of coaching forever.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^
Bio on 42-year old Curt Mallory:
Curt Mallory returns to his alma mater in 2011 as the defensive secondary coach. A two-year letterwinner (1989-90) under Bo Schembechler and Gary Moeller, Mallory was part of five Big Ten championship teams (1988-92). In 1989, the Wolverines posted a 10-2 record and earned a trip to the Rose Bowl. The 1990 team defeated Mississippi in the Gator Bowl, a game in which Mallory recorded a key interception.
Mallory comes to Ann Arbor after spending one year as Akron's defensive coordinator. He was Illinois' co-defensive coordinator for three years (2007-09) and has 10 years of experience coaching the secondary at Illinois, Indiana, Central Michigan and Ball State.
At Illinois, Mallory helped coach a defense that held opponents to 350 yards per game in 2008 and led the Big Ten in sacks and tackles for loss per game. He mentored cornerback Vontae Davis, a two-time Jim Thorpe Award semifinalist, All-American and All-Big Ten first team selection. He was the defensive coordinator when the Illini went to the 2008 Rose Bowl, their first appearance the 1984 game. The 2007 Illini squad allowed fewer than 20 points per game. In 2006, Mallory's defensive backs allowed 182.2 yards passing per game, which ranked second in the Big Ten. Opposing quarterbacks averaged only 6.5 yards per pass attempt and scored just 11 touchdowns through the air on the Illini in 12 games.
At Ball State, Mallory spent five seasons mentoring the linebackers (1995-99) and one with the secondary (2000). In 1995 and 1996, the Cardinals posted winning records, earning a berth in the 1996 Las Vegas Bowl.
Mallory began his career as a student assistant at Michigan, and then served as a graduate assistant for his father, Bill Mallory, at Indiana from 1993-94.
Bio on 37-year old Jeff Hecklinski:
Jeff Hecklinski is in his first year with Michigan football, serving as the team's wide receivers coach. He comes to Ann Arbor after spending two seasons with Brady Hoke at San Diego State as assistant head coach, running backs coach and recruiting coordinator.The Western Illinois graduate joined Hoke at Ball State in 2004 as the team's receivers coach before taking on added duties with recruiting in 2008.
Hecklinski was the quarterbacks coach/passing game coordinator at Arizona in 2003, after two seasons as the offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach at Central Missouri State, where he helped the team to the school's first-ever playoff appearance and bowl victory.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:57 AM ^
can they recruit against an Urban Meyer lead Ohio State without the resume of Mattison's.
This is the concern: Meyer has said Mattison is the best recruiter out their. Mattison has a resume including his time in the NFL that opens doors and creates that reason to believe. Will we be able to promote or hire to replace the Mattison cache effectively when he retires? Will Brady Hoke have the same cache himself by then?
That is the next horizon concern here. Somehow, someone needs to become the Mattison protege.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
Curt Mallory is an excellent East Coast recruiter.
Hecklinski has solid recruiting experience and connections on the West Coast.
Mark Smith has fantastic, 20+ years experience recruiting Ohio, which is one of the unsung reasons why Wormley was reclaimed (after having been ignored by previous staff), why Bolden, Strobel and others eventually committed.
There are great recruiters on this staff. I would not worry about the future if I were you.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
Mark Smith coached my son at the youth technique camp this summer, and I was really impressed with him as an instructor.
And maybe they're fine, and there is nothing to worry about. And maybe it is crazy for us to worry about such a thing anyway.
How nice it would be a blithely ignorant fan, and live in the moment, rather than spending all day on MGoBlog and worrying about whether Brionte Dunn had Coke or Pepsi with his burger and fries.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:33 PM ^
Will we be able to promote or hire to replace the Mattison cache effectively when he retires?
You raise fair questions. I would assume that is exactly what they're being groomed to do.
As maizenbluenc mentioned, Hecklinski has extensive recruiting experience.
Also, FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if Mattison outlasts Meyer.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:56 AM ^
talent level of this team -- it is unlikely to have more than 2-3 mid-round NFL prospects. Many of its players would not start on MSU, UW, UN or even PSU. Iowa had more talent than ours. Our talent level was similar to Illinois. We can see this by the number of players we had on 1st or 2nd all BIG teams. Also, compare the talent level of this team to that of 2007 or 2006. I believe that Hoke and company will be in the BCS championship game with that kind of talent.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^
It's easy to confuse hype with talent. No doubt, the coaches brought out the best in our players. At the same time, I think we had talent that was underachieving in the past. In addition, an important issue is where the talent is located. My personal view is that the most important positions, as in baseball, are up the middle. Our best talent is, arguably, at NT, C, QB and RB (not necessarily in that order). Top-notch WRs and DEs get the press, but I'll take a top QB and Center combo any day. That said, it's hard to match up talent with Ohio, so obviously talent isn't everything.